38 Oxley Road
38 Oxley Road was the residence of Lee Kuan Yew from 1940s until his death in 2015. It is an 8-bedroom two-storey bungalow, inclusive of a basement. The first meeting of the People's Action Party was held at the basement. History The area in which the house was located was named after British doctor Thomas Oxley who owned a nutmeg plantation on the location in the late 1890's. The area was acquired by a Jewish merchant named Manasseh Meyer. The house was vacated by its European owners during the Japanese occupation and taken over by Japanese civilians. Generally, the securities are divided as follows for their houses: *Certis Cisco for Lee Kuan Yew & Lee Hsien Loong *Gurkha guards for Goh Chok Tong *Military police (Vigilante) for Teo Chee Hean *Ademco Security for Tony Tan In 1950, Lee Kuan Yew moved to 38 Oxley Road with Kwa Geok Choo. The building continued to serve as the residence of Lee Kuan Yew throughout his tenure as prime minister and incumbent prime minister Lee Hsien Loong was raised here, until Ho Ching and Lee Hsien Loong got married in 1987, and moved to 24 Rochalie Drive. Security was stepped up with the closure of Oxley Road in 1969 to all vehicles, and Gurkha guards are trained to stop the vehicle. It was nicknamed "Privet Drive", something to the effect of Harry Potter's Little Whinging where Petunia Dursley, Vernon Dursley and Dudley Dursley were even staying from the first film to the final film, with the exception of scenes in the fourth and sixth films. Demolition Debate In an interview in 13 January 2011, Lee Kuan Yew wanted his house to be demolished after his death or kept as a closed residence at all times. The view was reinforced in the memoirs and writings. His first will was made that year in August 2011, with the estate (including Oxley House, Cluny House and several other assets), divided equally into three children, Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling. In addition, since 28 December 2010, it was gazetted as a national monument. There are negative support to their demolition of the house. In several documents released by Ho Ching, emailed the family in February 2012 with detailed plans about how the house will be renovated. Ho said that if there were objections to renting out the house after it was renovated, Lee Hsien Loong's family could move in with Dr Lee Wei Ling. In September 2012, Lee Kuan Yew was under the impression of the cabinet. The house was subject to government deliberation of whether to conserve the house for historical reasons. Lee Kuan Yew had met with the Cabinet in 2011 before his death and made known the preferred conditions if the house wants to be preserved. The 2 PMs had however stayed there, both he and his son. Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes and options are quite clear: *Option 1: Demolish the house *Option 2: Do not allow anybody to enter 38 Oxley Road *Option 3: Refurbish the house and allow everybody to enter Only on the December 2011, Lee Hsien Loong and Ho Ching also go against Option 1 or Option 2, instead going for Option 3. Lee Kuan Yew and Kwa Geok Choo had their desire, go for Option 1, where the Option 2 is never feasible after their death. He had also amended the two clauses to ensure his house can be demolished. Later on, on 3 January 2014, the demolition clause was overturned. On 22 March 2015, first few items such as the Deed of Gift were sent over to the National Heritage Board. So, in 2015, the Option 3 was pursued according to Lee Kuan Yew’s wish in 2012. Lee Kuan Yew met the architect, went through the proposal and approved the scheme to reinforce the foundations and renovate the house. Lee Kuan Yew signed his letter to the architect on 28 March 2012. “I hereby authorise you to act as an agent to submit on my application to the Competent Authority under the Planning Act 1998 for a written permission to develop Lot 99909X, TS20, 38 Oxley Road, for a Proposed Additions and Alterations to the 2-storey building at 38 Oxley road” Then, on 17 April 2012, URA approved it. But it only waited until 23 March 2015 to start all these conspiracy theories. Anyway, Ang Leng Yuk has promised that the 38 Oxley Road will not be "demolished", and can be used as a historical sites and monuments, to be like MCCY for example. 38 Oxley Road can still "save" for their future ministers to decide on it. Anyway, Chong Wenxin and Ms Indranee Rajah knows that Lee Kuan Yew left a "will" without the Power of Attorney. Even if it is a MP (former Indranee Rajah, then Joan Pereira), and then Lee Hsien Yang's one is Chee Hong Tat, it will still be there as a free rein. It depends on whether if the 2nd generation could be "around" by then. *16 June: Goh Chok Tong says "We are bigger than our troubles, stronger than our differences" *17 June: K Shanmugam says "The government has serious business to attend to, relating to the welfare of Singaporeans" *17 June: Goh Chok Tong says "Not worth tearing up family bonds built over a lifetime" *19 June: Lee Hsien Loong, ex-Prime Minister says "National issues are more important" *21 June: Teo Chee Hean says "Government has to be responsible for decisions for 38 Oxley Road" *23 June: Tharman Shanmugaratnam says "Lee Kuan Yew began system of ministerial committees to safeguard national interests" *23 June: Lawrence Wong asks about the NHB Deed of Gift. *23 June: Indranee Rajah says "38 Oxley Road will not be demolished at all" In our 2-day debates at the Parliament, many of the people need several replies: *3 July 2017 **Lawrence Wong - "To preserve or conserve: Government undertakes rigorous assessment process" **Teo Chee Hean - "It is our government's responsibility to consider aspects of property with historical or heritage significance" **Lee Hsien Loong - "Rule of Law will prevail" **Indranee Rajah - "Attorney-General Appointment, Lucien Wong, was thorough and rigorous" *4 July 2017 **Lawrence Wong - "Due Processes in place to conserve artefacts" **Heng Swee Keat - "Issue not about preservation or demolition" **Goh Chok Tong - "Lee Hsien Yang's goal is to bring down Lee Hsien Loong" **Teo Chee Hean - "Government will be so objective that DPM Teo assures the house" **Lee Hsien Loong - "Unite and let's move forward" There was a special committee when the National Library was demolished to make way for Fort Canning Tunnel, even in a dead ruin. The iconic Rochor Centre was given up in November 2011 because of the North-South Corridor. Singapore’s reputation is already broken because of stupidity from Teo Chee Hean and Lee Hsien Loong. Lee Hsien Loong had said in 2015: “When his father is around, he will never lose”. Redevelopment Proposal A lift will be provided at 38 Oxley Road to connect all floors, but with the redevelopment set in place, there will be a – *Basement 1 – Kitchen, Dining Room, Store Room *Level 1 – Living Room, Lee Wei Ling’s Room *Level 2 – Lee Hsien Loong & Ho Ching’s Room, Li Yipeng’s Room It was announced that in April 2015, after the death, there are plans to renovate the house into a condo, or equipped with a modern-house living. It would consist of 5 floors with a lift and the living/dining room being placede in between. Probate on the Will was given in October 2015 without any objections. Lee Hsien Loong then offered to sell the house to his sister, Lee Wei Ling for a nominal $1, with the condition if the Government were to acquire the property later, any future sale proceeds would go to charity. The offer was rejected. Subsequently, his brother Lee Hsien Yang took up an alternative offer to purchase it at market valuation, plus donating 50% of the value to charity. Lee Hsien Loong sold the house to his brother under those terms and donated all proceeds to charity. However, according to Lee Wei Ling, Lee Hsien Loong was deceitful in his statements. As part of the agreement in 2015, Lee Hsien Loong was said to have endorsed the demolition clause in the final will and promised to recuse himself from all government decisions on the house. The siblings were questioned why a ministerial committee stepped in to discuss the issue, and PM Lee made a statutory declaration with the intent to influence the committee decision. Lucien Wong, PM Lee's private attorney, represented him in the affairs as the PM Lee and his siblings stopped talking to each other directly. On 14 June 2017, Lee Hsien Loong's siblings made a statement on Facebook, alleging that he had abused the office to prevent the demolition and he had wished to move to the house on the advice of his father. They also alleged that various organs of state such as the National Heritage Board, Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, Prime Minister's Office and the ministerial committee have been involved in the private dispute. They further claimed that he had used state authorities to harass them and that they wanted to flee the country. These claims were denied by Lee Hsien Loong who expressed disappointment at his family for publicizing what he called a "family matter". Jolin Ong was later interrupted towards the request on 1 July 2017, just before the 2-day session. Lee Hsien Loong claimed that they do not want to sue the siblings, and only sue the opponents and abusers, leading some to question if the "government is arbitrary when it comes to dealing with serious criticism". The younger siblings come to the truce, saying that they would stop posting attacks that criticises the social media and work to resolve the matter, while the Lee Hsien Yang's son continued to sue over the State Courts. In a response to CNBC in October 2017, Lee Hsien Loong remarked that he is not sure that the family feud has been resolved, and that he had not communicated with his siblings. Ministerial Committee First, the alleged abuse of power. My siblings have given scant details of the charge, but my brother has cited as a “prime example” the setting up of the Ministerial Committee. I have already explained that I have recused myself. DPM Teo is in charge of this matter. I had nothing to do with the decision to set up the Ministerial Committee. I do not give any instructions to the Ministerial Committee or its members. My only dealing with the Committee has been to respond to their requests in writing by formal correspondence, no different from my siblings’ dealings with the Committee. This is the right and proper way to handle a conflict of interest. My siblings argue that even though I have recused myself, the Ministers are my subordinates and therefore, the Ministerial Committee cannot be independent from me. In fact, they say this of Parliament itself. This cannot be right. It is standard way, standard practice for the person facing a potential conflict of interest to recuse himself from the matter in this way, i.e. take himself out from handling the matter or making any decisions about it, and let somebody else deal with it, e.g. his deputy, or some other senior colleague. This is exactly what we have done in the case of 38 Oxley Road. I myself do not deal with the matter at all. I take no part in discussions or decisions concerning 38 Oxley Road. Teo Chee Hean is in charge of the committee. Ministers and officials report to take directions from DPM Teo Chee Hean concerning 38 Oxley Road. Happenings There are four possible options: Demolition Demolition of a building requires planning permission from URA under the Planning Act and a permit from BCA under the Building Control Act. The consequences are: *the land is cleared of the house *the path is cleared to seek redevelopment *the demolition is irreversible. Once it is demolished, there is no going back. Demolition removes, once and for all, any possibility of preservation, conservation or compulsory acquisition of the priority *the original rationale of the two-storey zoning of the area - which was to keep neighbouring houses low for security reasons - is also gone as Lee Kuan Yew is in heaven. *with the old rationale gone, demolition would clear the way for the owner to appeal for re-zoning / increase the plot ratio and even en-bloc the neighbouring condos, together with impending redevelopment. There could, of course, be other good reasons why such re-zoning may or may not be allowed. *with re-zoning or increased plot ratio is allowed, the land value will increase well beyond the market value for a two-storey property. In that event, one can expect many developers to line up to buy the property Preservation Under the Preservation of Monuments Act (PMA), property can be designated a national monument via a preservation order. 38 Oxley Road cannot be redeveloped, it will be subject to the stringent preservation guidelines and no works can be done to it without the approval of the National Heritage Board. Since it is used as a residence, the property will be subject to compulsory acquisition within one year of the preservation order. (Under the PMA, if a preserved building is occupied as a residence, the Government must acquire it within one year of the preservation order, otherwise the preservation order will lapse. This relieves the occupier of having to bear over the long term the responsibilities that come with preservation. ) Conservation Conservation is under the Planning Act. Conservation is less restrictive than preservation. Works can be done to the building as long as they fall within URA guidelines. If conserved, the land cannot be redeveloped. Compulsory Acquisition This would be done under the Land Acquisition Act (LAA). *there is no possibility of redevelopment, as property will then be acquired by the Government. *the owner, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, will get compensation under the LAA at market value at the time of acquisition. It would be valued on the basis of it being a two-storey landed property. *the government had several options in mind. It could, for example, choose to demolish the house and build a tasteful memorial or symbolic marker in a park setting. Deed of Gift After Lee Kuan Yew passed away, my siblings gifted artefacts from 38 Oxley Road to the NHB. This was formalised in a Deed of Gift. My siblings have accused me of improperly obtaining this Deed between them and NHB. They say I obtained the Deed as PM, and gave it to my lawyers, and that was wrong. But I disagree. The Deed was signed by my sister and brother, who were acting for my father’s estate. I was one of the beneficiaries of the estate. I was entitled to be consulted by my siblings before they did this, but I was not consulted. In June 2015, Minister Lawrence Wong updated me on a major SG50 exhibition on our founding leaders. He told me the exhibition included artefacts from Oxley Road, and described the conditions attached to the gift. He subsequently gave me the Deed, which I had not seen it before. As Prime Minister, I had every right to see it. After reading the Deed, I became very concerned over what NHB had agreed to. The terms were onerous and unreasonable to NHB. E.g. whenever NHB displayed the items, it also had to display them together with the first half of the Demolition Clause. But only the first half, which said that Mr Lee wanted the house knocked down, and not the second half of the Clause, which stated what Mr Lee wanted done if the house could not be knocked down. This partial, selective disclosure would mislead the public on Mr Lee’s intentions. Furthermore, my siblings had announced publicly that it was a gift. But in fact they had set conditions in the fine print: if at any time the terms of the Deed were breached, they could immediately take back all the items for $1. Therefore, this was not a gift at all. They had misled the public. Mr and Mrs Lee Kuan Yew had gifted many items to NHB during their lives, and they had never imposed any conditions on their gifts remotely like these. What Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang had imposed on NHB was wrong. Discovering all this, as Prime Minister, I had to act. Otherwise people might later wrongly think that I was party to this. It is nonsensical to say that because I saw the Deed in my official capacity as PM, I could not raise the matter with a family member. If I come across anyone doing something wrong, even family, especially family, it is my duty to set them right. In the same way, if any Minister discovers, in the course of his official work, that a family member is dealing improperly with some government agency, or seeking to take advantage of the Government, surely the Minister must take this up with the family member, and get him or her to stop. That is what the Code of Conduct is for. This is expected of anyone in a public position, especially me, the Prime Minister. I therefore wrote to my siblings through lawyers to object to what they had done. On the Government’s side, I told Lawrence Wong to take instructions from DPM Teo Chee Hean on this matter. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Henry Kwek, Mr Louis Ng, Ms Jessica Tan, Mr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Mahdev Mohan, Mr Kok Heng Leun, Mr Christopher de Souza, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Kuik Shao Yin, Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Leon Perera, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Jordan Kwan, Gavin Goh, Suhairi Hairie Muhd, Kai Ning, Ang Leng Yuk and several others today as well, have spoken on the Ministerial Committee. To recap, the Deed of Gift had several unusual conditions. One of these was the condition requiring the display of one part, but not the whole paragraph, related to Mr Lee’s wishes for the House, as stated in his will. The other was the $1 buy-back clause for the items donated. These were matters related to a private disagreement at that time, regarding the will and how Mr Lee had expressed his wishes regarding the house. It was a private matter at that time. If the NHB is to be faulted for anything, it is that they were drawn, through this Deed of Gift, into this private disagreement. When Minister Lawrence Wong informed me of the conditions set out in the Deed, I was not comfortable with them. And I’ll explain why. NHB, a public institution, was being drawn into a private disagreement, and the major exhibition was being used to put out only a part of Mr Lee’s wishes on the House. Members will recall that Mr Lee said in his will that the whole paragraph could be made public so that his wishes on the matter could be made known. Thawing of relations Lee Kuan Yew wanted Lee Wei Ling to stay in the house as long as she wanted. The Government has publicly stated that it will respect those wishes and does not intend to do anything until Dr Lee leaves. Letting the house stand for now does not go against those wishes. Lee Hsien Yang has said Dr Lee does not want to move out and she has every intention of living a long life. That being the case, the matter may well not need to be decided for another 20-30 years. It can be decided by a future government. DPM Teo Chee Hean had also opposed their options in the extreme end of the range: preserving the house for visitors to enter and see, they are totally against the wishes. And, at the other end, demolishing the house and putting it on the market for new private residences. One option that we foresee the study is demolish the house but keep the dining room as what we had voted, with an appropriate heritage centre attached. This would substantially fulfill Lee Kuan Yew's wish. He and Mrs Lee's privacy would then be respected. Pictures of the basement were available during the Mr Lee's time and these were widely available. At the same time, the history and heritage would not be lost and the crucible where the hopes and dreams of a nation were forged can be kept to inspire many more generations to come. These options need to be thought through deeply and carefully. The Ministerial Committee has tasked relevant agencies to study the range of possible options that a future government can consider at the appropriate time, after Dr Lee Wei Ling is no longer there. External Links *SBS Transit Service 16 Hyperlapse, showcasing 38 Oxley Road[ *Alleged Abuse on 38 Oxley Road: Lee Hsien Loong *Ministerial Committee: Teo Chee Hean *Closing Statement: Teo Chee Hean Category:Houses in Singapore